Yaffa's Kitchen Pty Ltd v Haapakoski - [2019] VSC 295

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2018 00513

YAFFA’S KITCHEN PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
ROBERT HAAPAKOSKI	First Defendant
and
JUDITH FRAYNE, JOHN HARRIS and PETER GIBBONS	Second to Fourth Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Yaffa’s Kitchen Pty Ltd v Haapakoski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 295

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of a Medical Panel – Whether Panel denied procedural fairness to employer by reaching conclusions that could not reasonably have been anticipated – Whether Panel’s reasons adequate – No error established – Proceeding dismissed – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) ss 303, 313.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Fleming QC with Ms F Spencer	Lander & Rogers
For the First Defendant	Mr N Horner	Rubicon Compensation Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

In July 2015, Robert Haapakoski began working for Yaffa’s Kitchen Pty Ltd, a company that produces gluten free and low allergy flour and baking mixtures under the name ‘Well & Good’. Mr Haapakoski worked as a factory hand on the food service production line, filling 15 kg and 25 kg bags of product. In September 2016, he experienced an episode of severe pain in his left shoulder. He continued working for a while, but then stopped work in late October 2016 due to pain in both shoulders.

Mr Haapakoski made a workers compensation claim for injury to both shoulders due to repetitive work, which was accepted. The claims agent for Well & Good arranged for him to be examined by Mr Richard Pease, an orthopaedic surgeon, in November 2016, and by Associate Professor Anthony Buzzard, a general surgeon, in March and June 2017. Both Mr Pease and Associate Professor Buzzard diagnosed bursitis in both shoulders, materially contributed to by his work duties at Well & Good. In June 2017, Associate Professor Buzzard considered that Mr Haapakoski would be able to return to pre-injury duties in two months’ time.

He returned to work on modified duties from January 2017, and by May 2017 was working his pre-injury hours. He continued working modified duties until August 2017. He says he stopped working then because he ‘couldn’t move his arms anymore’ due to pain in both shoulders.

In May 2017, Mr Haapakoski claimed to be suffering from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, in addition to his shoulder injuries. This claim was rejected by the claims agent on 5 July 2017. On the same day, the claims agent wrote to Mr Haapakoski advising that he would not be paid weekly payments because he had reduced his hours of work for reasons not related to his shoulder injuries.

Mr Haapakoski disputes both decisions, and referred the dispute for conciliation by the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS). On 6 February 2018, the conciliator referred medical questions for the opinion…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yaffa's Kitchen Pty Ltd v Haapakoski and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] VSC 295
Decision Date: 9 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yaffa's Kitchen Pty Ltd, an employer, initiated judicial review proceedings against a decision of a Medical Panel established under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). The dispute involved the Panel's assessment of the employer's employee's entitlement to certain medical benefits and its determination of the employee's capacity to return to work. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the Panel denied procedural fairness to the employer by reaching conclusions that could not reasonably have been anticipated and whether the Panel's reasons for its decision were adequate. The employer argued that the Panel had acted beyond the scope of the issues it was required to consider and that the reasons provided were insufficient. The court needed to determine whether these contentions established a basis for overturning the Panel's decision.

In its judgment, the court found that the Panel had not denied procedural fairness to the employer by reaching conclusions that could not reasonably have been anticipated. The court held that the Panel's decision was within the scope of the issues it was required to consider and that the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the decision. The court found that the employer had not established any error on the part of the Panel that warranted overturning the decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review.

The court's final orders were that the employer pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including the costs of two counsel. The employer was also ordered to pay interest on the costs from the date they were incurred until the date of satisfaction. The court did not grant any further relief to the employer.

Orders